SMT. BHAGWANTI DEVI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .

A                   SMT. BHAGWANTI DEVI AND ANR.
                                 v.
                     STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .

                  .(I          JANUARY 19, 1994

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]                                  -
         The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953/The Htuymuz Ceiling
    on Land Holdings Act, 1972 :

C          S. 2(5-a), r.Bof RulesframedunderAct/ss.7, 9,12(3), 32, 33(2)Surplus
    area-Exemption granted to landholders retain surplus land-In inte"egnum
    sons of landholders became majors-Landholders claimed reopening of dec-
    laration-Held, s.32 of Haryana Act declared all exemptions under r.8 of no
    avail w.e.f appointed day-Lands declared surplus under Punjab Act vested
    in State under s.12(3) of.Haryana Act w.e.f 24.12.1972-Neither s.12(3) nor
D   ss.7 and 9 of Haryana Act empower ceiling authority to reopen proceedings
    relating to surplus land which had become final under Punjab Act and surplus
    area in pending proceedings under Punjab Act shall be determined under that
    Act.

          Abatement of appeal-One of' the respondents died during pendency of
E
    appeal-Legal heirs not brought on recortJ--,..Appeal abated-Held since cause
    of action being dismissal of appeal against one respondent, that operates
    against other respondents also.

          Certain lands of appellants were declared as surplus under s.2(5) of
F  the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. On appellants' applica-
                                                                                      >
   tions under r.8 of the Rules framed under the Act, they were permitted to
   continue to use the surplus area after ejecting the tenants. On coming into
   force of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, the appellants
   filed writ petitions before the High Court, contending that meanwhile the          /


G minors in the family having become majors the lands cannot be regarded
   as surplus with them. The writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the appeals
 . by special leave.             ·
                                                                                   ,.>--
          It was contended on behalf of the appellants that though the lands
    were declared as surplus under the Punjab Act, the appellants continued
H   to remain in possession and enjoyment of the lands as the owner and by
                                       180
              BHAGWANTI DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA                         181

virture of ss.7 and 9 of the Haryana Act, the Ceiling area should be A
redetermind.

      Dismissing the appeal, this Court

       HELD : 1. Section 32 of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972
declared all exemptions under r.8 of the Rules framed under the Punjab          B
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 granted in relation to the utilisation
of surplus area of no avail w.eJ. the appointed day, i.e. 24.1.1971, and from
that day the possession held by ~e appellants became unlawful and
entitles the Collector or competent officer to resume possession of them
from the appellants. But for the exemption the appellants· had no right to      C
remain in possession. [183-F-H; 184-A]

      2. In view of s.12(3) of the Haryana Act, the lands declared surplus
under the Punjab Act vested in the State w.e.r. 24.12.1972. Even otherwise,
the non-utilisation of surplus land till date of vesting is not material. The
language of s.12(3) is unequivocal and clear. (183-D]                           D
       3. Neither s.12(3) nor ss.7 and 9 of the Haryana Act empower the
ceiling authority to reopen the proceedings relating to surplus land that
 had become final is also made clear by s.33(2)(ii) of Haryana Act which
says that determination of surplus area in the pending proceedings under E
.the Punjab Act shall be done under that Act and surplus land shall vest
in and be utilised by the State Government in accordance with the
 provisions of the Haryana Act. The legislative intendment, therefore, ap-
 pears that the surplus area declared under the Punjab Act shall remain
 to be surplus. There is no express provision in the Haryana Act indicating
 that surplus area declared under the Punjab Act should be reopened and F
 recomputed under the Haryana Act. If any area that becomes surplus
 under the Haryana Act since the surplus area was reduc:ed from 31 acres
 to 17112 acres, that surplus area should be redetermined under s.7 read
 with s.9. Therein if a son becomes major and resides separately, he is
 entitled to a separate unit etc. (184-A-D]                                 G

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2532-
35/85 etc. etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.1981 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5298of1981.                                      H
    182                   SuPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1994) 1 S.C.R.

A        AM. Singhvi, G.K. Bansal, S.M. Ashri, K.K. Mohan, Rajiv· Dutta,
    Vipin Nair, Mahabir Singh, J.D. Jain, Ms. Shirin Jain, Ms. V. Mohana and
    Ms. Indu Malhotra for the appearing parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
           1. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since
    a common question of law arises, ~e parties are inter-related and the
    dispute relates to the same land. These appeals arise from. the judgment
    of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.1677 of 1985 and batch- ·
    by which a Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants in
C   limie. Thus these appeals by special leave are filed.

           2. The appellant:' family had. 828 standard acres of land. Under
    Section 2(5) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for short
    'the Act' which came into force w.e.f. April 15, 1953, the Collector took
D   proceedings dated June 27, 1960 and declared surplus lands concerned in
    the respective appeals. That declaration became final. Thereafter, applica-
    tions were filed under Rule 8 of the Rules made under the Act seeking
    permission to utilise the surplus lands by contilluing in their possession on
    the ground that they were cultivating the lands as a modern farm. It is
E   unnecessary to advert to previous history of the surplus lands except to
    state that the Special Board by its order dated May 12, 1964 made under
    Rule 8 of the Rules permitted the appellants to continue to use the surplus
    area after ejecting the tenants that were put in possession by the Collector
    under East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949. While the appellants
    continued 'to enjoy the surplus lands, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Hold-
F   ings Act, 1972 came into force w.e.f. January 24, 1971. By operation of
    sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Haryana Act, the surplus lands stood
    vested in the State w.e.f. December 23, 1972. The appellants filed writ
    petitions claiming that the minors in the family had, after declaration of
    the lands as surplus under 1953 Act, having become majors, they cannot
G   be regarded as surplus holders and, therefore, they were entitled to con-
    tinue to use the lands. Those writ petitions being dismissed, the present
    appeals are· filed by special leave.
                                                                                    >--
          3. Shri S.M. Ashri, the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously
H contended that by operation of section 9 of Haryana Act read with the
             BHAGWANTI DEVI v. STATE OF HARYANA                        183

provisions of 1953 Act, the appellants continue· to remain as owners of the   A
land though the lands were declared surplus. He maintained that the lands
since remained undistributed among tenants and continued in appellants
possession and enjoym~nt as owners, they were entitled to be considered
under Haryana Act as non surplus landholders. Whether they ar«? having
lands within the ceiling limit prescribed under section 7 of the Act has,     B
therefore, to be considered and redetermined. We find no force in the
contention.

      4. No. doubt under 1953 Act, there is no specific provision which
provided for vesting of the surplus lands, declared thereunder. The Collec-
tor had power to take possession of the surplus lands and utilise them C
under East Punjab Area Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949, by their allotment
to the tenants for cultivation. But for the exemption granted under Rule 8
of the Rules, the appellants had no right to remain in possession. Having
got the benefit of Rule 8 and remained in possession of the surplus land
and utilised the same for the purpose of cultivation in a modern farm, it is D
not open to appellants to contend that the land having remained unutilised
and continued to be in their possession and enjoyment, s.12(3) does not
divest them of their title. The language of s.12(3) is unequivocal and clear.
According to it the surplus lands declared under the Act stand vested in
the State. Even otherwise the non-utilisation of surplus land till date of E
vesting i.e. on December 23, 1972 is not material. The object of the Act
and s.12(3) of 1972 Act was redistribution of surplus land among the
landless ryots and agricultural labour and to confer title on them. The Act
enabled the owner of the surplus land to recover rent from the lessee ~d
enjoy the income till date of vesting and no more. Section 32 of Haryana
Act admittedly declared all exemptions under Rule 8 as of no avail w.e.f.
                                                                              F
January 24, 1971 in that it expressly states thus :

        "As from the appointed day exemption granted in relation
        to the utilisation of surplus area under korchards, tea-
        estates or well run farms by virtue of the provisions of the          G
        rules framed or purpo,rted to have been framed under the
        Punjab Law, shall stand withdrawn".

      5. Therefore, from the appointed day the possession held by appel-
lants of surplus lands become unlawful and entitles the Collector or com-     H
    184                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1994] 1 S.C.R.

A   petent officer to resume possession of them from appellants. Neither
    Section 12(3) nor Sections 7 and 9 the Haryana Act empower the ceiling
    authority to reopen the proceedings· relating to surplus lands which had
    become final is also made clear by Section 33(2)(ii) thereof. Section
    33(2)(ii) says that the surplus area determined in the pending proceedings
B un:der the Act shall be. done under that Act and surplus land shall vest in
    and be utilised by the State Government in accordance with the provisions
    of the 1972 Act. Sub-section 2(ii) of section 33, no doubt, deals with
    determination of surplus area pending proceeding under the Punjab Law
  · as on the notified date and vesting of the. surplus area so determined in
C the State. The legislative intendment, therefore, appears to be that the
    surplus area declared under Punjab Law shall remain to be surplus. If any
    area that becomes surplus tmder the Hary; ·.u.a Act since the surplus area
    was reduced from 31 standarc acres to 17-112 acres, that surplus area
    should be redetermined under Section 7 read with section 9. Therein if a
    son becomes major and resides separately he is entitled to a separate unit
D etc. However, it does not appear that the surplus area declared tmder the
    Ptmjab Law should be reopened and recomputed under 1972 Haryana Act.
    No such express provision was engrafted- in 1972 Act. Though the family
    of the appellants have swelled and some of the minors have become majors,
    the appellants are not entitled to have the surplus area which had become
E final reopened for recomputatioi:t under the 1972 Haryana Act. Thus
    considered, we find that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the
    writ petitions. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed, but without costs.

          6. In S.L.P.7622 of 1982

F          Leave granted.

          The first petitioner Tara Singh died on July 5, 1987 and his legal
    representatives have not been brought on record. Therefore, the appeal
    stood abated, as against him. Since the cause of action was the dismissal
G   of the appeal against Tara Singh that operates as against the other two
    persons Pritam Singh and Jeet Singh. Therefore, the appeal as against the
    other appellants also stood abated. No. costs.

          7. In CA.Nos.1657/82, CA. @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.7175/86, 3185/85
                                                                                    >-
H   7441/86, 7384/86, & in W.P.Nos.16213-16/84.
                 BHAGWANTIDEVI v. STATEOFHARYANA                           185

           C.M.P. No. 24822/82 in C.A. No. 1657/82 is allowed. Leave granted      A
    in the S.L.Ps. The point raised in these matters is covered by the judgment
    just now dictated in C.A. Nos. 2532-35/85, 2667-69/85 & 2531/85. There-
    fore, these appeals are, as well, dismissed. No. costs.

    R.P.                                                   Appeals dismissed.




,